Monday, April 30, 2012

Certain anti-gay crusaders do protest too much, researchers think

In this month’s issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we and our fellow researchers provide empirical evidence that homophobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of same-sex desire....from Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay (New York Times) by Richard M. Ryan,a professor of psychology, psychiatry and education at the University of Rochester and William S. Ryan, a doctoral student in psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

"Can." "Maybe." The researchers are careful to add:

It’s important to stress the obvious: Not all those who campaign against gay men and lesbians secretly feel same-sex attractions. But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance.

Posted at 06:22:21 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As I understand it, the classic definition of homophobia is dread of homosexuals that is rooted in one's own repressed homosexuality. The word evolved from that into its current usage of general disdain for gays.

I think the problem surfaced when it was decided that homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disability or physical abnormality, about 40 years ago. Before, it could be excused for those reasons.

The documentary "Outrage" (I think it's called) provides some interesting insights into why so many gay dudes use the the Republican Party as their closet.

I love the fact that so many of these weirdos (Santorum, Marcus Bachman, Charlie Crist, Larry Craig) do everything but walk around wearing a sandwich-board proclaiming their repressed sexuality through a bullhorn.

What's interesting to me is that every well-adjusted heterosexual person I know realizes that gay people are gay for the same reason straight people are straight, and they don't waste any time obsessing over it or making gay Americans lives even more difficult than they already are by treating them like second-class (or worse) citizens.

--On the one hand, it's hard to deny the correlation between weird anti-gay crusading and tawdry gay scandal on the part of so many of these anti-gay nutjobs.

On the other hand, I don't know how constructive it is to keep saying that if you're anti-gay, you must be gay - it sounds too much like calling them gay as though it's an insult, which is inappropriate for both sides.

ZORN REPLY -- I see it more like accusing them of hypocrisy, not accusing them of homosexuality.

I'll buy the idea that people who make a point of expressing anti-gay sentiments, especially those who go out of their way to do so, may have some, er, "tendencies" themselves. Same goes for folks who talk about those issues a lot. People who just don't want to be around gays or just instinctively don't like the idea? Probably not. Also, when it comes to a lot of political issues, i.e., same sex "marriage," I don't see a connection between engaging in a detached, intellectual discussion of that question (no matter what side one takes) and having homosexual tendencies.

Pan makes a good point. There is something wrong with the term "homophobia," because it implies a diagnosis of fear of homosexuality; objective commentary on the issue should not use the term. However much I disagree with people who castigate gays, calling all these people homophobes begs the question in the true sense in that it assigns a flawed psychological state to them. Obama cites religion for his opposition to full gay marriage; many Christian conservatives who oppose it cite religious qualms and may be as sincere as we are supposed to think Obama is; ie, they are not afraid of gay people. They are often called homophobes. Is Obama a homophobe?

Pretty much. Although really Obama, like Romney, is whatever it is politically expedient to be in the moment. But to the extent he actually has a position, I suspect it's pretty far to the right, evolution or no.

Are there really people out there who "don't want to be around gays"? I mean, I could understand not wanting to hang out at a gay bar, or with a large group of gay people at once, but does this extend even to taking a class with them, or attending a dinner party with one, or the multitude of other daily life events that gay people might also be present at?

When it comes to the first set of examples from SK (not wanting to be at a gay bar or around a lot of gay people at once), I'd say that applies to most guys. Most people who I know don't take exception to the presence of a homosexual person in a common setting. Still, I don't think it's a problem if someone doesn't want to be around gays at all (I'm speaking from a social perspective and not necessarily a moral perspective). I mean, it's not a wonderful attitude to say the least but, much like passive racism or other biases, it's nobody else's business as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. The most we can ask of anyone is tolerance, which involves nothing more than leaving people alone. Again, I'm talking about a minimum standard of social conduct and not necessarily what most of us endorse or would consider ideal.

But, how on earth is that even possible to never be around gay people at all?? The mind boggles. What do these people do if they find out they are around a gay person, whether it be at work, school, or the house next door? And, since gay people don't generally wear signs, it might take quite a while for such a person to figure out that the very nice neighbor, librarian or cop is gay. What then?

Right but who cares? I'm not interested in psychoanalyzing the mentality. I'm merely pointing out that if someone doesn't want to be around gays or Catholics or Puerto Ricans or the deaf, it's nobody's business but their own. How or when or why they choose to avoid anyone is their own problem. As long as it's not hurting anybody it's their call and it's not up to us to get involved.

It's more difficult to accept changing sexual orientations in a high school environment where these sexual tendencies are still developing, being understood. It's even harder to teach tolerance, unless you have support from parents, other staff. A peer approach seems to give the best results, where we focus on the rejection of bullying altogether, no matter what the reason.

I have no doubt that kids have a bigger problem with homosexuality than adults do and I'm completely with you on the no tolerance for bullying. No school should put up with any physically threatening behavior towards any student. What I'm referring to is strictly personal feelings and passive behavior (which exclusively is up to the parents and the kids), not active harmful behavior (which clearly becomes the school's business).

I don't believe that no one gets hurt when someone decides they are going to avoid everyone who is gay, Puerto Rican or Catholic. In a diverse society, I just can't imagine that it's possible to do so without being obvious about it.

Perhaps but it's also none of anyone's business. Again, it's not an attitude I agree with but we have to let people live the way they want to live, and act the way they want to act, as long as they aren't threatening, harassing, or physically harming anyone else. We can't punish thought crimes or other passive behavior. Tolerance is the most we can ask.

Suggesting that criticizing same sex marriage is caused by repressed homosexual tendencies is a weak attempt to silence criticism. I am not intimidated.

I do not want to suppress criticism of my point-of-view.

ZORN REPLY -- Yes, how open minded of you not to want to suppress criticism. Maybe you should think about opening your mind a little more and not denying gay people the right to marriage equality for no other reason -- no other reason -- that it offends YOUR view of moral responsibility.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.